IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v177y2017icp78-86.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advocacy coalitions involved in California's menu labeling policy debate: Exploring coalition structure, policy beliefs, resources, and strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Payán, Denise D.
  • Lewis, LaVonna B.
  • Cousineau, Michael R.
  • Nichol, Michael B.

Abstract

Advocacy coalitions often play an important role in the state health policymaking process, yet little is known about their structure, composition, and behavior. In 2008, California became the first state to enact a menu labeling law. Using the advocacy coalition framework, we examine different facets of the coalitions involved in California's menu labeling policy debate. We use a qualitative research approach to identify coalition members and explore their expressed beliefs and policy arguments, resources, and strategies by analyzing legislative documents (n = 87) and newspaper articles (n = 78) produced between 1999 and 2009. Between 2003 and 2008, six menu labeling bills were introduced in the state's legislature. We found the issue received increasing media attention during this period. We identified two advocacy coalitions involved in the debate—a public health (PH) coalition and an industry coalition. State organizations acted as coalition leaders and participated for a longer duration than elected officials. The structure and composition of each coalition varied. PH coalition leadership and membership notably increased compared to the industry coalition. The PH coalition, led by nonprofit PH and health organizations, promoted a clear and consistent message around informed decision making. The industry coalition, led by a state restaurant association, responded with cost and implementation arguments. Each coalition used various resources and strategies to advance desired outcomes. PH coalition leaders were particularly effective at using resources and employing advocacy strategies, which included engaging state legislators as coalition members, using public opinion polls and information, and leveraging media resources to garner support. Policy precedence and a local policy push emerged as important policymaking strategies. Areas for future research on the state health policymaking process are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Payán, Denise D. & Lewis, LaVonna B. & Cousineau, Michael R. & Nichol, Michael B., 2017. "Advocacy coalitions involved in California's menu labeling policy debate: Exploring coalition structure, policy beliefs, resources, and strategies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 78-86.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:177:y:2017:i:c:p:78-86
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.01.036
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953617300436
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.01.036?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pomeranz, J.L. & Brownell, K.D., 2008. "Legal and public health considerations affecting the success, reach, and impact of menu-labeling laws," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 98(9), pages 1578-1583.
    2. Princen, Sebastiaan, 2007. "Advocacy Coalitions and the Internationalization of Public Health Policies," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 13-33, May.
    3. Bero, Lisa A. Ph.D. & Montini, Theresa & Bryan-Jones, Katherine & Manguarian, Christina, 2001. "Science in Regulatory Policy Making: Case Studies in the Development of Workplace Smoking Restrictions," University of California at San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education qt9w2773tz, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, UC San Francisco.
    4. Breton, Eric & Richard, Lucie & Gagnon, France & Jacques, Marie & Bergeron, Pierre, 2008. "Health promotion research and practice require sound policy analysis models: The case of Quebec's Tobacco Act," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 1679-1689, December.
    5. Wison, Carter A., 2000. "Policy Regimes and Policy Change," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 247-274, December.
    6. Thibodeau, Paul H. & Perko, Victoria L. & Flusberg, Stephen J., 2015. "The relationship between narrative classification of obesity and support for public policy interventions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 27-35.
    7. Monardi, F. & Glantz, S.A., 1998. "Are tobacco industry campaign contributions influencing state legislative behavior?," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 88(6), pages 918-923.
    8. Matthew Zafonte & Paul Sabatier, 1998. "Shared Beliefs and Imposed Interdependencies as Determinants of Ally Networks in Overlapping Subsystems," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 10(4), pages 473-505, October.
    9. Falbe, J. & Thompson, H.R. & Becker, C.M. & Rojas, N. & McCulloch, C.E. & Madsen, K.A., 2016. "Impact of the Berkeley excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverage consumption," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 106(10), pages 1865-1871.
    10. Tanya Heikkila & Jonathan J. Pierce & Samuel Gallaher & Jennifer Kagan & Deserai A. Crow & Christopher M. Weible, 2014. "Understanding a Period of Policy Change: The Case of Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Policy in Colorado," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 31(2), pages 65-87, March.
    11. Christopher Weible & Tanya Heikkila & Peter deLeon & Paul Sabatier, 2012. "Understanding and influencing the policy process," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 1-21, March.
    12. Dallas J. Elgin & Christopher M. Weible, 2013. "A Stakeholder Analysis of C olorado Climate and Energy Issues Using Policy Analytical Capacity and the Advocacy Coalition Framework," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 30(1), pages 114-133, January.
    13. Mangurian, C.V. & Bero, L.A., 2000. "Lessons learned from the tobacco industry's efforts to prevent the passage of a workplace smoking regulation," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 90(12), pages 1926-1930.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elnaz Moghimi & Mary E Wiktorowicz, 2019. "Regulating the Fast-Food Landscape: Canadian News Media Representation of the Healthy Menu Choices Act," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-22, December.
    2. Brydie Clarke & Boyd Swinburn & Gary Sacks, 2018. "Understanding Health Promotion Policy Processes: A Study of the Government Adoption of the Achievement Program in Victoria, Australia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-19, October.
    3. Clarke, Brydie & Swinburn, Boyd & Sacks, Gary, 2019. "Investigating menu kilojoule labelling policy adoption from a political science perspective," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    4. Nykiforuk, Candace I.J. & McGetrick, Jennifer Ann & Raine, Kim D. & Wild, T. Cameron, 2019. "Advocacy coalition impacts on healthy public policy-oriented learning in Alberta, Canada (2009–2016): A difference-in-differences analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 31-40.
    5. Clarke, Brydie & Swinburn, Boyd & Sacks, Gary, 2020. "Understanding the LiveLighter® obesity prevention policy processes: An investigation using political science and systems thinking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Antje Witting, 2017. "Insights from ‘policy learning’ on how to enhance the use of evidence by policymakers," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Jakina Debnam, 2017. "Selection Effects and Heterogeneous Demand Responses to the Berkeley Soda Tax Vote," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1172-1187.
    3. Małgorzata Gałązka-Sobotka & Aldona Frączkiewicz-Wronka & Iwona Kowalska-Bobko & Hanna Kelm & Karolina Szymaniec-Mlicka, 2021. "HB-HTA as an implementation problem in Polish health policy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-24, September.
    4. Neuhofer, Zachary & McFadden, Brandon R. & Rihn, Alicia & Wei, Xuan & Khachatryan, Hayk & House, Lisa, 2020. "Can the updated nutrition facts label decrease sugar-sweetened beverage consumption?," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    5. Zilliox, Skylar & Smith, Jessica M., 2017. "Memorandums of understanding and public trust in local government for Colorado's unconventional energy industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 72-81.
    6. Aerang Nam & Christopher M. Weible & Kyudong Park, 2022. "Polarization and frames of advocacy coalitions in South Korea's nuclear energy policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 387-410, July.
    7. Sara Capacci & Olivier Allais & Celine Bonnet & Mario Mazzocchi, 2019. "The impact of the French soda tax on prices and purchases. An ex post evaluation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-22, October.
    8. Alyssa J. Moran & Yuxuan Gu & Sasha Clynes & Attia Goheer & Christina A. Roberto & Anne Palmer, 2020. "Associations between Governmental Policies to Improve the Nutritional Quality of Supermarket Purchases and Individual, Retailer, and Community Health Outcomes: An Integrative Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-23, October.
    9. Dogbe, W. & Gil, J.M., 2018. "Effects of a modified Danish fat tax on food consumption and nutrients intake in Spain," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277237, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Mockshell, Jonathan & Birner, Regina, 2020. "Who has the better story? On the narrative foundations of agricultural development dichotomies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    11. Fry, Matthew & Brannstrom, Christian, 2017. "Emergent patterns and processes in urban hydrocarbon governance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 383-393.
    12. Yichen Zhong & Amy H. Auchincloss & Brian K. Lee & Ryan M. McKenna & Brent A. Langellier, 2020. "Sugar-Sweetened and Diet Beverage Consumption in Philadelphia One Year after the Beverage Tax," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-12, February.
    13. Knox, Melissa A. & Oddo, Vanessa M. & Walkinshaw, Lina Pinero & Jones-Smith, Jessica, 2020. "Is the public sweet on sugary beverages? Social desirability bias and sweetened beverage taxes," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    14. Metodi Sotirov & Georg Winkel, 2016. "Toward a cognitive theory of shifting coalitions and policy change: linking the advocacy coalition framework and cultural theory," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(2), pages 125-154, June.
    15. Fleury, Marie-Josée & Grenier, Guy & Vallée, Catherine & Hurtubise, Roch & Lévesque, Paul-André, 2014. "The role of advocacy coalitions in a project implementation process: The example of the planning phase of the At Home/Chez Soi project dealing with homelessness in Montreal," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 42-49.
    16. Hannah G Lawman & Sara N Bleich & Jiali Yan & Michael T LeVasseur & Nandita Mitra & Christina A Roberto, 2019. "Unemployment claims in Philadelphia one year after implementation of the sweetened beverage tax," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-10, March.
    17. Hagenaars, Luc Louis & Jeurissen, Patrick Paulus Theodoor & Klazinga, Niek Sieds, 2017. "The taxation of unhealthy energy-dense foods (EDFs) and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs): An overview of patterns observed in the policy content and policy context of 13 case studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(8), pages 887-894.
    18. Adam Wellstead, 2017. "Plus ça Change, Plus C’est La Même Chose? A review of Paul Sabatier’s “An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein”," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 549-561, December.
    19. Harrinkari, Teemu & Katila, Pia & Karppinen, Heimo, 2016. "Stakeholder coalitions in forest politics: revision of Finnish Forest Act," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 30-37.
    20. Zhai, Tianchang & Li, Lei & Wang, Jingjing & Si, Wei, 2022. "Will the consumption tax on sugar-sweetened beverages help promote healthy beverage consumption? Evidence from urban China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:177:y:2017:i:c:p:78-86. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.